Organizer Ruth Walmsley represents one of the 50 local organizations that put the rally together, one of many taking place worldwide.

“We are marching for many different reasons, many of us are very concerned about climate change and the need to take fairly major action in the near future to address some of those concerns.”

Summit doubts

But while the goal of the summit is a legally binding international agreement on climate, some activists wonder whether if that’s achievable.

“Does the cost of the ticket – can I actually justify that in accomplishing anything there, or will I just be another face in the crowd?”

Rob Shirkey’s non-profit group Our Horizon advocates for climate change warning labels on gas station nozzles. He says he’s seen more success at the municipal level.

“I think there’s just so many competing interests at the national level which in some ways make it almost a less effective place to actually tackle this problem. If you can get them to do interesting and innovative things and have it spread, it might then trickle up to create more space for senior levels of government.”

The Paris Climate Change summit is the 21st international meeting on environmental issues since 1992. Meetings take place from November 30 to December 11.

Changed the channel?
Cause Gorebull Warming never happened . . . so they changed the name . . . lol
When did the Climate NOT Change No-site? Do you remember when that was?
It is a Scam of Gorebull proportions . . . did you know ole Strong, the creator of the IPCC is dead ?

So today as 10s of thousands are flying to Paris, to cruise in limos, eat at the finest restaurants and babble about the life-giving gas CO2 for many days . . . at a cost to Taxpayers of 100s of Millions as they are creating a Carbon Footprint = to a medium sized Country.

Strong, the God Father of the Environment; the creator of sustainability, yet the news of his death came from the UN by Twitter yesterday.

“Strong will forever be remembered for placing the environment on the international agenda and at the heart of development,” Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN Environment Program, (UNEP) tweeted.

Ole Maurice was another Keybec Scammer, worked for Power Corp, headed Petro Canada and Ontario Hydro before going international with the UN. He was a Billionaire/Globalist/Socialist and cared not for the “Little” people . . . who will pay for decades for his Gorebull Warming Scam, which made him 10s of millions.

To whomever made this comment, the day when Canada no longer has winter, we will be all dead.

It is extremely difficult to avoid a personal statement, but these type of comments are precisely the type of ideas that will spell disaster one day for future generations.

Please consider learning more about these issues.

The world is working to stop global warming at a rise of 2 degrees centigrade.

For no winter to happen in Vancouver, we would need to increase average temperatures by 8-10 degrees. At that point, most of Vancouver is under water; there will be almost no snow or ice on the planet, and everyone we now know would likely either be starving or already deceased due to the lack of food from barren desert land that cannot be used to grow crops (otherwise known as the Canadian Prairies, the Eastern European grain fields, and Central Asia.

We’ve experienced 34 of the 35 hottest months on records on Earth, regarding average temperatures in the past 10 years. That’s why we call it warming.

Accurate global records are a credibility stretch beyond a few decades ago.
Even now it’s a struggle for the statistionists to determine what a global temperature is.
The only place catastrophic warming exists is in computer projections that assume carbon dioxide sensitivity. It’s all still highly speculative.
Did you happen to see NOAAs certainty level of last years proclaimed record warm?

Are these save the world bunch protesting because all these other save the world people going on vacation to Paris are flying in OMG, air planes that use carbon fuel instead of all going there in a row boat?

shhh…. wouldn’t want to enrage these do gooders by showing what hypocrites they are would you ? I mean really … marching around , bellowing out slogans, singing songs … its all such good fun and makes you feel so self righteous … why spoil the event by dragging reality into it ?

I would like to know why there was a good 9 degree difference between my thermometer and what the Weather Network posted this morning!

I read a solid -10 degrees when i stepped out my door. Yet every posted temperature for here (-1) and the surrounding area was at least 6 to 9 degrees warmer! Has anyone else noticed this apparent “fudging” of local temperatures? I have noticed that for several years. Yet the summer temperatures very often jive.

By the way, how about Canada’s new PM Trudeau borrowing another $2.64 BILLION to give away to these climate change hoaxers? Anyone have any thoughts on that?

I think we are hooped folks. By my observations the lunatics are running the asylum.
They are teaching this false belief as truth to our schools
The media are walking lockstep with the continual propaganda messaging.
We have a Federal Government that is more influenced by “Big Environment ” hell bent on the Green Agenda. More direct influence to top level government decision makers than any industry ever had in the past.
We have institutions of higher education receiving billions to validate their unprovable hypothesis.
The UN is determined to force nations to mass redistribution of 100’s of billions for prosperous nations to those not so.
All this on something that may or may not be proven true for many decades in the future.
The only truth I see is that this hoax will never be allowed to be proven false and all those mentioned above will be party to the biggest lie ever told to mankind.
It’s like the blind leading the blind folks, except if offered site they would still refuse the offer and prefer to stay in the dark.

These people are pushing a fraud. Time and again their predictions have not materialized, but they have the two biggest group of useful idiots on their side, politicians and the media, together with academics. What this really about is the left that lost the argument on economics replacing it with climate change. In other words, of course prosperity for people is not possible, no point in trying because it will destroy the planet.

In the meantime, some 55,000 people are flying to Paris to stay in 5 star hotels, eat good food, drink it up, on someone else’s dime, and they will then tell us that travel, energy and food should be rationed.

Got to maintain the hype , the Global Warm-mongering / Climate Change INDUSTRY worths around THREE TRILLION DOLLARS. Got to push the scare tactics , have their dupes protest and DEMAND them unreliable windmills but clean NUCLEAR energy that does not create any CO2 is FORBIDDEN.

IF people don’t stop emitting CO2 by 2100 humanity will be in REAL DANGER. And who’ll be around to see the results?

BTW sofar no learned scientist came forward to explain ho can CO2 create Global Warmin and also Ice Age?

Is this our future . . . . ?
Germany’s energiewende is a raft of different energy policies that can be boiled down to the following plan: phase out nuclear energy while boosting wind and solar by guaranteeing producers long-term, above-market rates called feed-in tariffs. It was a plan that from the outset reflected all the unexamined beliefs centrel to the modern green movement, and it’s been plagued by problems at every step. (1)

This plan resulted in aggressive and reckless expansion of wind and solar power, causing German consumers to shoulder the cost of those feed-in tariffs in the form of sky high electricity bills. Those power bills have encouraged some of Germany’s heavy industry to look around for a better environment in which to do business.

Energiewende has so far added more than 100 billion euros ($134 billion) to the power bills of households, shop owners and small factories as renewable energy met a record 25 percent of demand last year. Consumer rates are soaring to fund new plants. Germany’s 40 million households now pay more for electricity than any other country in Europe except Denmark. (2)

Germany power companies are going broke and 350,000 households are getting theie electricity turned off each year because they can’t afford the bills. Over the past three years a whopping 1,025 million German households lost power. (3)

Earth for People not People For Earth
To listen to these self absorbed morons (who are scientifically clueless as they cannot read)
FROM WSJ

In February President Obama said, a little carelessly, that climate change is a greater threat than terrorism. Next week he will be in Paris, a city terrorized yet again by mass murderers, for a summit with other world leaders on climate change, not terrorism. What precisely makes these world leaders so convinced that climate change is a more urgent and massive threat than the incessant rampages of Islamist violence?

It cannot be what is happening to world temperatures, because they have gone up only very slowly, less than half as fast as the scientific consensus predicted in 1990 when the global-warming scare began in earnest. Even with this year’s El Niño-boosted warmth threatening to break records, the world is barely half a degree Celsius (0.9 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than it was about 35 years ago. Also, it is increasingly clear that the planet was significantly warmer than today several times during the past 10,000 years.

Nor can it be the consequences of this recent slight temperature increase that worries world leaders. On a global scale, as scientists keep confirming, there has been no increase in frequency or intensity of storms, floods or droughts, while deaths attributed to such natural disasters have never been fewer, thanks to modern technology and infrastructure. Arctic sea ice has recently melted more in summer than it used to in the 1980s, but Antarctic sea ice has increased, and Antarctica is gaining land-based ice, according to a new study by NASA scientists published in the Journal of Glaciology. Sea level continues its centuries-long slow rise—about a foot a century—with no sign of recent acceleration.

Perhaps it is the predictions that worry the world leaders. Here, we are often told by journalists that the science is “settled” and there is no debate. But scientists disagree: They say there is great uncertainty, and they reflected this uncertainty in their fifth and latest assessment for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It projects that temperatures are likely to be anything from 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 to 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer by the latter part of the century—that is, anything from mildly beneficial to significantly harmful.

As for the impact of that future warming, a new study by a leading climate economist, Richard Tol of the University of Sussex, concludes that warming may well bring gains, because carbon dioxide causes crops and wild ecosystems to grow greener and more drought-resistant. In the long run, the negatives may outweigh these benefits, says Mr. Tol, but “the impact of climate change does not significantly deviate from zero until 3.5°C warming.”

Mr. Tol’s study summarizes the effect we are to expect during this century: “The welfare change caused by climate change is equivalent to the welfare change caused by an income change of a few percent. That is, a century of climate change is about as good/bad for welfare as a year of economic growth. Statements that climate change is the biggest problem of humankind are unfounded: We can readily think of bigger problems.” No justification for prioritizing climate change over terrorism there.

The latest science on the “sensitivity” of the world’s temperature to a doubling of carbon-dioxide levels (from 0.03% of the air to 0.06%) is also reassuring. Several recent peer-reviewed studies of climate sensitivity based on actual observations, including one published in 2013 in Nature Geoscience with 14 mainstream IPCC authors, conclude that this key measure is much lower—about 30%-50% lower—than the climate models are generally assuming.

A key study published in the Journal of Climate this year by Bjorn Stevens of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, found that the cooling impact of sulfate emissions has held back global warming less than thought till now, again implying less sensitivity. So the high end of the IPCC range is looking even more implausible in theory and practice. When politicians intone that, despite the slow warming so far, “two degrees” of warming is inevitable and imminent, remember they are using high estimates of climate sensitivity.

Yes, but if there is even a tiny chance of catastrophe, should the world not strain every sinew to head it off? Better to decarbonize the world economy and find it was unnecessary than to continue using fossil fuels and regret it. If decarbonization were easy, then sure, this would make sense. But the experience of the last three decades is that there is no energy technology remotely ready to take over from fossil fuels on the scale needed and at a price the public is willing to pay.

Solar power is cheaper than it was, but even if solar panels were free, the land, infrastructure, maintenance and backup power (for nighttime and cloudy days) would still make it more expensive than gas-fired electricity. Solar provides about 0.5% of the energy generated world-wide. Wind has expanded hugely, but at massive cost, yet still supplies a little more than 1% of all energy generated globally. Nuclear is in slow retreat, and its cost stubbornly refuses to fall. Technological breakthroughs in the production of gas and oil from shale have outpaced the development of low-carbon energy and made it even less competitive.

Meanwhile, there are a billion people with no grid electricity whose lives could be radically improved—and whose ability to cope with the effects of weather and climate change could be greatly enhanced—with the access to the concentrated power of coal, gas or oil that the rich world enjoys. Aid for such projects has already been constrained by Western institutions in the interest of not putting the climate at risk. So climate policy is hurting the poor.

To put it bluntly, climate change and its likely impact are proving slower and less harmful than we feared, while decarbonization of the economy is proving more painful and costly than we hoped. The mood in Paris will be one of furious pessimism among the well-funded NGOs that will attend the summit in large numbers: Decarbonization, on which they have set their hearts, is not happening, and they dare not mention the reassuring news from science lest it threaten their budgets.

Casting around for somebody to blame, they have fastened on foot-dragging fossil-fuel companies and those who make skeptical observations, however well-founded, about the likelihood of dangerous climate change. Scientific skeptics are now routinely censored, or threatened with prosecution. One recent survey by Rasmussen Reports shows that 27% of Democrats in the U.S. are in favor of prosecuting climate skeptics. This is the mentality of religious fanaticism, not scientific debate.

So what will emerge from Paris, when thousands of government officials gather from Nov. 30 to Dec. 11 to agree on a new U.N. climate deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2020? Expect an agreement that is sufficiently vague and noncommittal for all countries to sign and claim victory. Such an agreement will also have to camouflage deep and unbridgeable divisions while ensuring that all countries are liberated from legally binding targets a la Kyoto.

The political climate is conducive to such an ineffectual agreement. Concerns about the economy, terrorism and international security have been overshadowing the climate agenda for years. The fact that global warming has slowed significantly over the past two decades has reduced public concern and political pressure in most countries. It has also given governments valuable time to kick painful decisions down the road.

The next 10-15 years will show whether the global-warming slowdown continues or whether a strong warming trend terminates the current pause for good. The Paris summit is likely to agree to a review process that reassesses global temperatures and carbon-dioxide emissions every five years. If the climate is less sensitive to carbon-dioxide emissions than climate models assume, the new accord should allow for the possibility of carbon-dioxide pledges to be relaxed in line with empirical observations and better scientific understanding.

Concerned about the loss of industrial competitiveness, the Obama administration is demanding an international transparency-and-review mechanism that can verify whether voluntary pledges are met by all countries. Developing countries, however, oppose any outside body reviewing their energy and industrial activities and carbon-dioxide emissions on the grounds that such efforts would violate their sovereignty.

They are also resisting attempts by the U.S. and the European Union to end the legal distinction (the so-called firewall) between developing and developed nations. China, India and the “Like-Minded Developing Countries” group are countering Western pressure by demanding a legally binding compensation package of $100 billion a year of dedicated climate funds, as promised by President Obama at the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen in 2009.

However, developing nations are only too aware that the $100 billion per annum funding pledge is never going to materialize, not least because the U.S. Congress would never agree to such an astronomical wealth transfer. This failure to deliver is inevitable, but it will give developing nations the perfect excuse not to comply with their own national pledges.

Both India and China continue to build new coal-fired power stations. China’s coal consumption is growing at 2.6% a year, India’s at 5%, which is why coal was the fastest-growing fossil fuel last year. China has pledged to reduce energy and carbon intensity, but that is another way of saying it will increase energy efficiency—it doesn’t mean reducing use.

For the EU, on the other hand, a voluntary climate agreement would finally allow member states to abandon unilateral decarbonization policies that have seriously undermined Europe’s competitiveness. The EU has offered to cut carbon-dioxide emissions by 40% below the 1990 level by 2030. However, this pledge is conditional on all nations represented at the Paris summit adopting legally binding carbon-emissions targets similar to and as a carry-over of the Kyoto Protocol.

According to the EU’s key demand, the Paris Protocol must deliver “legally binding mitigation commitments that put the world on track toward achieving the below 2°C objective. . . . Mitigation commitments under the Protocol should be equally legally binding on all Parties.” The chances of such an agreement are close to zero. If there are no legally binding carbon targets agreed to in Paris, the EU will be unlikely to make its own conditional pledges legally binding.

Any climate agreement should be flexible enough so that voluntary pledges can be adjusted over the next couple of decades depending on what global temperatures do. The best we can hope for is a toothless agreement that will satisfy most governments yet allow them to pay lip-service to action. In all likelihood, that’s exactly what we can expect to get in Paris.

We know that there is no such a thing as self-heating greenhouse and yet new theories have been invented to argue something that cannot be argued.

We know that there is nothing in common in IR spectra between CO2, methane and water and yet they have been classified together as ‘greenhouse gases’ because they absorb infrared radiation, together with millions of other molecules.

We know that all the knowledge about the physical world comes from experiments that can be validated and not from calculations that cannot be validated. And yet, everything about man-made global warming is about calculations and NOTHING about measurements.

NW is populated by “Useful Idiots” . . . so common today in Canadian Media !

A few years ago Kevin Newman . . . concerned with the Polar Bear problem ran a 5 month old clip in December, claiming there was no ice in Ft. Churchill. I checked with Enviro Canada and the weather report that day was -30 and a foot of snow.

Did anyone see the pic they used on FACEBOOK? Its a forgery. Everyone in shorts and tshirts like a bright sunny 20 degree day. It was what? 4 or 5 degrees? You would last maybe 10 minutes in that weather standing around.

So now NW is using fake pictures to push a FAKE BS Global Warming agenda.